|
Presented by: Rev. Dale Arnink, Minister Emeritus
Goal: to help the curious know a bit about humanism;
to point out some problems for those
who already know about humanism.
–The title was meant to be provocative and thus interesting.
Perhaps drawing a few who might otherwise go out of town for Memorial Day Weekend.
–Like much of current political statements these days, the title is deceptive and only a 1/2 truth.
But Why talk about Humanism anyway?
Because a group of people, self-identifying as humanists, have been letting it be known that they have become uneasy in this congregation.
-Truth is, many congregations and many groups of humanists are having similar experiences of dis-ease.
The problems often manifest themselves around the use of certain words from traditional western religion:
Such words as prayer, worship, reverence, God, Church, holy, sacred, mystery, soul, spiritual.
I think some of the difference lies in generational differences.
Younger folks, and newer UUs, wonder why the older folks get into such a snit.
What is the fuss about these words?
At the same time, these younger folk may well have their head’s spinning from all the choices and options available in the current, “marketplace of spirituality.”
A lesson in History
1966 Time Magazine cover had an infamous cover of all black background and large red letters which read, “Is God Dead?”
The article inside was about the many leading thinkers who were declaring the death of God.
Christians Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Van Buren, William Hamilton and Thomas J. J. Altizer, and the rabbi Richard L. Rubenstein
were theologians who said God had died; theologians should know, right?
People from many areas of society chimed in.
My conversion from conservative christianity to humanism had occurred two years earlier and I knew God was dead.
I mention this to indicate that this was an era of skeptical probing, and critical thinking about religion.
Of course not everyone believed God was dead, not everyone was skeptical.
But many of us older folks were at that time steeped in skepticism Many, like me, had struggled inwardly, had defied our families and communities, to work our way through to a clarity about the falsehoods of church and scriptural authorities;
to freedom from the incredible peer pressure
to be true believers, faithful followers;
to a reasoned rejection of all things supernatural.
We became UU Humanists and found a community of like minds.
But it is my sense that in the decades since, skepticism has faded a great deal and has been replaced, to my mind, with a great deal of naive and unquestioning credulity.
Well, what did they know?! In a few more years Harvey Cox and others would predict, even, the demise of churches for sure and perhaps organized religion.
Instead we have witnessed a world wide resurgence of religions.
In this country the marketplace of religions is so full of “stuff” that one hasn’t time to consider them all seriously and so they are, all of them, passively accepted in an attitude of freedom and tolerance, (that’s surely better than Taliban-like attack) accepted as: ‘If it works for them well and good.” Truth, deception, falsehood, adequacy, reliability, justification are issues not raised – until there is newsworthy scandal!
–”What’s the fuss; if it works for them why should I be critical or skeptical; and please accord me the same allowance.”
What else characterizes humanists besides skepticism:
Humanism is a philosophy, world view, or life stance based on naturalism–the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry–logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions–to obtain reliable knowledge. Humanists affirm that humans have the freedom and obligation to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity. Humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using a realistic ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge–an ethics that judges the consequences of human actions by the well-being of all life on Earth.
–Steven D. Schafersman
Many people can sign-on to at least some of these propositions, because our history has influenced us: Humanism stems from the protestant reformation, from the Renaissance, from the 18th C. Enlightenment especially. Most of the thinkers behind the American Revolution were either humanists or much influenced by humanists.
I once wrote a research paper (“Whatever Became of Reason?”) in which I said this about the Enlightenment:
The Enlightenment leaders may be said to have invented a new politics by asserting the power and authority of reason. In opposition to traditional institutions of authority and institutions of an authoritarian nature, reason was promoted as a new and better authority.
Reason was asserted as the chief tool of emancipation. Rationality was to undermine the false gods, unlock the shackles, shed light upon what had been concealed, throw down the tyrannical.
Reason was to be the new authority, an authority common to all who would choose to be rational; and reason would constitute the tool of emancipation and the means to a more just, fulfilling, humane world. Tool of human welfare, reason would arrive at the goal of universal truths, of how things are and of how things ought to be.
Unitarians had asserted rationality as authority in religion from the time of breaking loose from Roman Catholics and other Protestants.
Not scriptures, not traditions, not church hierarchies, but only reason and individual conscience should rule a person’s religious life.
Not surprising then that in the 1920’s and 30’s when the times called for dedicated humanists to get organized for various reasons, many UUs, lay, and ordained were at the forefront.
And for many years humanism was the dominant stance in many congregations.
That is no longer true. Self-professing humanists have become a minority voice in most UU congregations. Power corrupts; perhaps power corrupted humanists, making them complacent, arrogant and weak. In any case, humanists are feeling marginalized in our movement. We humanists have tended to be exclusive and inflexible. We did not recruit effectively, make an appealing message, nor keep with intellectual change. Times have changed and so have people.
Faults of 20th century Humanism acknowledged by contemporaries
1. RELIANCE ON TOO NARROW A RATIONALITY. (e.g. real human life issues often are not amenable to a strictly scientific empirical approach.)
2. NAIVE OPTIMISM ABOUT HUMAN POTENTIAL FOR EVIL
3. ANTHROPOCENTRISM. HUMANS AT THE TOP OF THE SCALE OF BEING, RATHER THAN A PART OF THE INTERDEPENDENT WEB. (Humans supplanted angels and God at the top of the traditional “scale.”)
But those are faults with the “Philosophy. I think the more serious fault has to do with simple human nature: Humanists are fallible humans with human weaknesses. Some of us are not so very skilled in, tuned into, human relationships. You Know: Thinkers are the nerdy types. There is some truth in that stereotype.
As minister I always attended the annual national General Assembly. The UU Humanist organization put on programs as did many other groups. I stopped attending the discussion portion of those programs because I found them unpleasant. (!!!) There was a prevailing style of criticism, anger, self-righteousness, exclusion and intolerance. This was a style of rationality that is exclusive and inhumane – not to the other rationalists – WE LOVE TO FIGHT (argue) – But exclusive to those not yet in the club of skeptics.
We don’t intend to put other people off, but we often unintentionally shut down conversation when: The other detects an attitude which says, “Since I think it, it must be right and reasonable;” “I’d rather avoid the non-empirical, the emotional, the metaphorical, the imaginative, the relational, the aesthetic.”
Other unintentional conversation stoppers, put downs:
“I’m not arguing or saying you are wrong, I’m just discussing rationally.”
“Have you read the latest book on that?”
“Where did you go to school?”
“Well, that’s interesting but where’s the proof?”
Let me withdraw the term “arrogant” and say rather that Humanism has suffered from a kind of Elitism. Does humanism appeal to those not affluent, those not gifted by Good Fortune, those in tragic circumstances of unremitting suffering, where Hope must be blind, Faith lodged in an elsewhere. Do we have anything to say to those suffering in Haiti?
–”If the God idea were not already around, it would have to be invented.”
Humanism has aimed at a literate, knowledgeable, critically-minded, democratically motivated public. But is that the direction of this society, of this world?
How many UU Humanists have no profession, no college education?
Changes Humanism must make:
Come to terms with Postmodern philosophy and incorporate its strengths (others must be respected and heard and accommodated)
Be an Embodied Humanism not disembodied, the whole Human: a sound mind in a sound body: not Irenic but passionate; not just facts but stories, not just science but art, not just logic but vision and commitment.
Justify and utilize the non-rational, affectional, motivational; become passionate.
xs
A change most important to me (derived from the study “Whatever Became of Reason?”)
Revise the notion(s) of Reason and rational; reason is not a little machine inside everyone’s head that can be turned on to take in data and spit out true conclusions. Reason is a social process, a give and take about the relevant information, even what is relevant? incorporate the dialogic model and move away from the old “scientific empiricism” model.
I hope to have aroused in some of you an interest in the life philosophy of humanism.
I hope to have advised humanists to be careful about how we talk about sensitive matters; your attitude matters. Intuition, imagination, the personal, matter in the rational process.
And regarding the uncomfortableness in this congregation,
I would advise: Talk;
talk about these traditional words of religion;
be aware that they are troublesome;
don’t talk to one another, talk with one another.
Have rich, honest, detailed, open discussions.
Passive tolerance is easy; engaged tolerance that recognizes and explores and overcomes differences is extremely difficult. (See the last two issues UU World)
But that is what is needed in this congregation (and in this world! If we can’t do it how do we expect others to?)
Just by being UU you share many humanist values, much of the humanist philosophy absorbed by our history, culture.
That is a base from which to work on the tolerance for differences and how to overcome differences.
Rev. Dale Arnink
Minister Emeritus
|
